"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Not a very good argument for Abiogenesis ... I must admit.
... here is a video on evolution ... and its invalidity..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXP_lyRmcE

Sorry for the plauge of posts, I keep reading things and feeling the need to respond.
We're not arguing about abiogenesis but for what it's worth, the video hardly puts up a solid argument against it either.

Now, the other video....oh where to start.

1)The fossil record does contain, to use the video's own crap term 'Hald reptile half birds.' Many well preserved dinosaur fossils have feathers. Look up Archaeopteryx for an old example, you might learn something.

2) They're using a 150+ year old book as a main source. No reputable scientist would do this. Evolutionary research has come on in leaps and bounds since Darwin's time.

3) The video seems to assume that almost every animal which has ever existed has been fossilised, which is ludicrous.

4) It keeps saying no transitional forms have been found, which is just untrue.

5) Lol at the video referring to 'low-level textbooks' and 'pure fantasy'

6) Are they seriously using the cambrian explosion as evidence of creation? There's evidence of life before the Cambrian. Why did we not find humans along with trilobites in these fossil beds?

I can't remember if the whole 'fossil preservation on such a large scale HAS to be due to Noah's flood!!11!!!!!one!!!' argument has popped up yet or if i saw it somewhere else lately, but it's also clearly horse****. The layering of sediments which are demonstratably in stratigraphic sequence are rarely consistant in terms of ordering or thickness with what we would expect from a flood. Of any scale.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Link please.

link as promised.

and some other posts showing evidence for evolution. and that's barely sctatching the surface of the material posted.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68285392&postcount=1358

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68276827&postcount=1335

J C

koth wrote: »

link as promised.

Thanks Koth.

Now lets look at how this mutation worked ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action.html
Quote:-
In 51 survivors and their descendants, they discovered a hitherto-unknown variant of PRNP, the gene which makes prions, the proteins that spread the disease. These prions become malformed and in turn make all healthy prions they encounter malformed as well, in a chain reaction that ultimately destroys brains by turning them into a spongy mush.
'Beneficial' mutations are extremely rare ... and when they do occur, they are observed in all cases to be the result of damage to the systems within the organism via a loss of functionality i.e. a loss of CFSI ... which is going in the opposite direction to what is required to transit from microbes to men.
For example, there is a 'beneficial' mutation for insects on islands that results the loss of flight, as this prevents them from being blown out to sea and drowned.
The Kuru resistance gene mutation is similar in that it inhibits the production of the Kuru prion by a loss of CFSI ... through the substitution of glycine for a valine amino acid in Codon 127.
The propagation of the prion depends on the presence of normally folded protein in which the prion can induce misfolding. People who do not express the normal form of the prion protein cannot develop the disease ... because of a mutation that has resulted in the expression of an abnormal protein ... so that the Kuru prion cannot induce misfolding, thereby causing the disease.
... so this is an example of a 'beneficial' mutation resulting from a loss of the CFSI - for producing normal protein folding in the target protein for Kuru.

Quote:-
Initially, Mead and his colleagues thought that because the variant had never been seen before, it must have damaging rather than beneficial effects. "We thought we'd found the trigger for how kuru happens, that someone ate the brain of someone with the mutation and that's how the disease started spreading through the cannibalistic funeral feasts," he said.
"Instead, we found the complete opposite, which is that it was protective."
It is protective against Kuru ... by damaging normal protein folding.
This is similar to the Sickle Cell Anaemia mutation ... which is damaging to blood cells, but the heterozygous form of the allele confers tolerance to Malaria Disease i.e. it is an example of a rare 'beneficial' mutation that results from a loss of CFSI.

swiftblade

Honest question JC. How do you explain goose bumps (disambigutation)?

As said they are now useless but in the past, the erector muscle would cause hair to stand up trapping a layer of warm air between the skin. This being its primary use it is also used to show emotions, fear, pleasure etc. With the absence of hair foicles the effect is seen as a slight raised area on the skin.

J C

koth wrote: »

... and some other posts showing evidence for evolution. and that's barely sctatching the surface of the material posted.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68285392&postcount=1358

Thanks again Koth for the link.

... so let's see what happened here.

Quote:-

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
An E.Coli bacterial population acquired the ability (that other bacteria already have) to metabolise Citrate.
The mechanism by which that came about is unclear ... but it is likely to have been either a point mutation or a frame shift that 'turned on' a Citrate metabolism mechanism ... that is part of the pre-existing CFSI of all bacteria, including E. Coli.

Could I also point out that this is the only change of note after 44,000 generations of bacteria which would be equivalent to 400,000 years for a mammal with a generation length of 10 years ... not much of an achievement for a mechanism that supposedly 'evolved' Mankind from a glorified rat over 260 million years.
Of course the glorified rat was a type of rodent that was fossilised a few thosand years ago along with crocodiles and a whole zoo of 'living fossils' that also didn't change much over the last 10,000 years, either.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

Honest question JC. How do you explain goose bumps (disambigutation)?

As said they are now useless but in the past, the erector muscle would cause hair to stand up trapping a layer of warm air between the skin. This being its primary use it is also used to show emotions, fear, pleasure etc. With the absence of hair foicles the effect is seen as a slight raised area on the skin.

Common structures are indicative of either or both a common ancestor or a common designer.
If Humans were descended from hairy Apes, they should have retained their full body hair, especially in colder Northern latitudes, as up to the 20th century, this would have given them a definite selection advantage over less hairy types during cold winters. The fact that this isn't the case is indicative of a Designer in action rather than descent from an Ape.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Common structures are indicative of either or both a common ancestor or a common designer.
If Humans were descended from hairy Apes, they should have retained their full body hair, especially in colder Northern latitudes, as up to the 20th century, this would have given them a definite selection advantage over less hairy types during cold winters. The fact that this isn't the case is indicative of a Designer in action rather than descent from an Ape.

What about breading with humans from warmer climates and migration away from colder climates? Why would a creator design us with such a stupid pointless thing?

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

What about breading with humans from warmer climates and migration away from colder climates? Why would a creator design us with such a stupid pointless thing?

... there wouldn't be much 'interbreeding' over large distances before the wholesale movement of populations that modern transport allows and a Common Designer probably did so ... because He could ...

... and Natural or Sexual Selction should have got rid of it long ago, if it's as useless as you claim.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

... there wouldn't be much 'interbreeding' over large distances before the wholesale movement of populations that modern transport allows and a Common Designer probably did so ... because He could ...

... and Natural or Sexual Selction should have got rid of it long ago, if it's as useless as you claim.

Wait, so you do believe that evolution takes place?

Sarky

J C's ignorance of evolution somehow manages to get worse. I'm really not sure how you manage to screw it up more each time J C, but to your credit you keep finding a way.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

Wait, so you do believe that evolution takes place?

NS is quite good at getting rid of negative attributes ... even up to the point of elimination (and the creation of an obligate).
It is useless at producing the functional variety (or CFSI), in the first place ... and this is supposedly provided by random mutagenesis ... even though mutagenesis has never been observed to increase CFSI ... but, instead, it has always been observed to degrade it.

I have always said that NS is a fact ... and it can and does select varieties that are more suited to environmental niches from pre-existing CFSI.
Sexual Selection also exists ... (as anybody in a disco rapidly finds out) ... and it can be additive or subtractive to NS.
Sexual selection may select healthier more athletic specimens, for example, thereby being additive to NS ... or it can be subtractive to NS by selecting very 'flashy' attributes (like 'bigger and better' Peacock Feathers) ... which are a distinct NS disadvantage, because of the increased predation (and use of resources) that is likely to result.

swiftblade

I don't think this is going any where...but

What about the extrinsic ear muscles we have. Commonly used it mammals to direct their ears to focus the sound. Think of dogs and cats.

How come we have these defunct muscles? They are still there, but incredibly small. Some people can infact still wiggle their ears.

I under stand that this argument is pointless though, as you don't seem to understand what evolution is. You say you believe in natural selection yet don't believe in evolution. It makes no sence.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

I don't think this is going any where...but

What about the extrinsic ear muscles we have. Commonly used it mammels to direct their ears to focus the sound. Think of dogs and cats.

How come we have these defunct muscles? They are still there, but incredibly small. Some people can infact still wiggle their ears.

I under stand that this argument is pointless though, as you don't seem to understand what evolution is. You say you believe in natural selection yet don't believe in evolution. It makes no sence.

Are these muscles really analagous to those in Cats and Dogs and descended from a common ancestor (rather that evidence of a common designer, who turned them off in Humans)? ...
... and if you say that they are evidence of common descent, why would NS have selected against them ... when they could have continued to confer directional hearing on Humans?

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Are these muscles really analagous to those in Cats and Dogs and descenced from a common ancestor (rather that evidence of a common designer, who turned them off in Humans)... and if you say that they are evidence of common descent, why would NS have selected against them ... when they could have continued to confer directional hearing on Humans?

It is common across most land animals.

The reason we didn't need them anymore was because we became the dominant predator. The lower down the food chain the bigger these muscles are usually. It is criticle in animals such as rabbits and hares to focus the sound from behind them.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

It is common across most land animals.

The reason we didn't need them anymore was because we became the dominant predator. The lower down the food chain the bigger these muscles are usually. It is criticle in animals such as rabbits and hares to focus the sound from behind them.

It could also come in handy in a dark alley ... on a dark night ... and many other dangerous situations for Humans!!!:)
... but it was something that God chose to not endow us with ... and 'evolution' was unable to provide us with.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

It could also come in handy in a dark alley ... on a dark night ... and many other dangerous situations!!!:)
... but it was something that God chose to not endow us with ... and 'evolution' was unable to provide us with.

But then why put a tiny version of the muscle there. Could God just not put none there? Why put something there that serves no purpose.

Wait, if it has no purpose, it has no CFSI. God didn't create it. :eek:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The fossil record shows a lot of gradual change. Look up tetrapod evolution. I've written an essay on the subject that I'll upload once I find it.

I'd like to read that ... you have obviously done a lot of work on it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Bringing up 'living fossils' once again shows you have no clue how evolution works, and shows you've never read a book on the topic. Just because a new organism evolves from an old one, it doesn't automatically follow that the old one will disappear. Why would it?

... stasis in hundreds of creatures and plants over supposed hundreds of millions of years ... does sit very awkwardly with claims that while nothing was happening with these species ... other species were transforming from a rat-like thing into a man.
It's indicative that the time frames should be measured in thousands, rather than millions of years ... and the rat-like thing and Humans were contemporaneous.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And what would happen if this micro evolution continued over a few hundred million years? Surely some of the species would become so differerentiated from their ancestors that they could be called a new species? Boom. Evolution of species. Grossly simplified but we have to start somewhere.

Speciation can occur very rapidly through isolation combined with intense selection ... but it's always observed to use pre-existing CFSI.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Take flightless birds.Why do they still have wings? Funny how much they look like those of other birds which have the ability to fly. It's almost as if they had a common ancestor somewhere down the line. Hmmm...

They may have always been flightless ... or they may have lost the where-with-all for flight ... either way they don't provide any evidence for the type of 'evolution' required to change mocrobes into men ... over millions of years.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's not your ears you need to open, it's your mind.

They're all wide open to any ideas you may proffer.:)

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

But then why put a tiny version of the muscle there. Could God just not put none there? Why put something there that serves no purpose.

Wait, if it has no purpose, it has no CFSI. God didn't create it. :eek:

Good point ... although we can't prove a negative definitively ... if it has little or no function or purpose, it will have little or no definitive CFSI ... you're starting to become a really good Creation Scientist!!!:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sorry for the plauge of posts, I keep reading things and feeling the need to respond.

Think of it as helping you to learn about Creation Science.:);)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

1)The fossil record does contain, to use the video's own crap term 'Hald reptile half birds.' Many well preserved dinosaur fossils have feathers. Look up Archaeopteryx for an old example, you might learn something.
'Dinosaurs' are a mixture of different (dramatic-looking) creatures including birds (like Archaeopteryx), reptiles (like T. Rex) and warm-blooded mammals (like Triceratops).

2) They're using a 150+ year old book as a main source. No reputable scientist would do this. Evolutionary research has come on in leaps and bounds since Darwin's time.
The main problems identified by Darwin with his theory still remain.

3) The video seems to assume that almost every animal which has ever existed has been fossilised, which is ludicrous.
... not really ... but with millions of different specimens supposedly fossilised continuously over hudreds of millions of years ... we should see, at least some of the continuums over which species supposedly 'evolved' ... and not the wide gaps we see between all creatures.
It's like the fossilisation all happened over a very short period of time during a mass extinction caused by a worldwide flood.

... Just saying!!!:)


4) It keeps saying no transitional forms have been found, which is just untrue.
It's true allright.


5) Lol at the video referring to 'low-level textbooks' and 'pure fantasy'


6) Are they seriously using the cambrian explosion as evidence of creation? There's evidence of life before the Cambrian. Why did we not find humans along with trilobites in these fossil beds?
... because Humans don't ... and didn't inhabit the bottom of the sea ... where these creatures lived, died and were fossilised ... in a mass extinction event.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I can't remember if the whole 'fossil preservation on such a large scale HAS to be due to Noah's flood!!11!!!!!one!!!' argument has popped up yet or if i saw it somewhere else lately, but it's also clearly horse****. The layering of sediments which are demonstratably in stratigraphic sequence are rarely consistant in terms of ordering or thickness with what we would expect from a flood. Of any scale

Quote:-
"Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short period of time."
... and have a look here:-
http://nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Good point ... although we can't prove a negative definitively ... if it has little or no function or purpose, it will have little or no definitive CFSI ... you're starting to become a really good Creation Scientist!!!:)

It has no purpose. Unless of coarse you can find one?

So if it has no CFSI, who put it there?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Thanks Koth.

Now lets look at how this mutation worked ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action.html

'Beneficial' mutations are extremely rare ... and when they do occur, they are observed in all cases to be the result of damage to the systems within the organism via a loss of functionality i.e. a loss of CFSI ... which is going in the opposite direction to what is required to transit from microbes to men.

For example, there is a 'beneficial' mutation for insects on islands that results the loss of flight, as this prevents them from being blown out to sea and drowned.

The Kuru resistance gene mutation is similar in that it inhibits the production of the Kuru prion by a loss of CFSI ... through the substitution of glycine for a valine amino acid in Codon 127.

CFSI has nothing to do with evolution. The kuru example shows that a generation was born with an immunity to the disease that their parents didn't have.

The propagation of the prion depends on the presence of normally folded protein in which the prion can induce misfolding. People who do not express the normal form of the prion protein cannot develop the disease ... because of a mutation that has resulted in the expression of an abnormal protein ... so that the Kuru prion cannot induce misfolding, thereby causing the disease.
... so this is an example of a 'beneficial' mutation resulting from a loss of the CFSI - for producing normal protein folding in the target protein for Kuru.

but it is beneficial in this example. Immunity to a fatal disease is a good thing.

It is protective against Kuru ... by damaging normal protein folding.
This is similar to the Sickle Cell Anaemia mutation ... which is damaging to blood cells, but the heterozygous form of the allele confers tolerance to Malaria Disease i.e. it is an example of a rare 'beneficial' mutation that results from a loss of CFSI.

Please stop using CFSI in this discussion until you clearly define it. And presuming that your statement about the protein folding is correct, how is it damaging it if it makes the child more resistant to disease?

swiftblade

How do you explain wisdom teeth JC?

We needed them in the past but now they are defunct. Some people have them some don't. What's your take on this?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Thanks again Koth for the link.

... so let's see what happened here.
An E.Coli bacterial population acquired the ability (that other bacteria already have) to metabolise Citrate.
The mechanism by which that came about is unclear ... but it is likely to have been either a point mutation or a frame shift that 'turned on' a Citrate metabolism mechanism ... that is part of the pre-existing CFSI of all bacteria, including E. Coli.

Could I also point out that this is the only change of note after 44,000 generations of bacteria which would be equivalent to 400,000 years for a mammal with a generation length of 10 years ... not much of an achievement for a mechanism that supposedly 'evolved' Mankind from a glorified rat over 260 million years.
Of course the glorified rat was a type of rodent that was fossilised a few thosand years ago along with crocodiles and a whole zoo of 'living fossils' that also didn't change much over the last 10,000 years, either.

But bacteria can go through many generations compared to a single generation of animal. And it's not unreasonable to think that maybe life-forms further along the evolutionary scale have an ability to adapt better between generations.

The kuru example shows that the adaptation didn't take 1,000s of generations to happen. The article states that the finding "really supports the concept of very rapid adaptation of humans to the environment".

J C

koth wrote: »

CFSI has nothing to do with evolution. The kuru example shows that a generation was born with an immunity to the disease that their parents didn't have.

True.

koth wrote: »

but it is beneficial in this example. Immunity to a fatal disease is a good thing.

True ...
... but the scientific issue is whether this is proof of the type of evolution that would produce new improved genetic information ... or a degrading of that information ... which would be indicative of a once-perfect Creation that is 'running down'.
As the benefit was achieved by the mutation-induced expression of an abnormal protein ... so that the Kuru prion cannot induce misfolding, thereby preventing the disease ...
It is therefore indicating the latter rather than the former is the case.

koth wrote: »

Please stop using CFSI in this discussion until you clearly define it.

I have already defined it here

koth wrote: »

And presuming that your statement about the protein folding is correct, how is it damaging it if it makes the child more resistant to disease?

Whilst preventing Kuru, which of course is welcome, it does this by the production of abnormal protein which is a reduction in CFSI.

Sarky

Your "definition" of cfsi is crap. Give us a better one. Preferably a mathematical definition. Like the one Dembski claimed to have, but mysteriously never provided, even after all these years. Until you do, nothing you say about cfsi has any validity.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

True.

True. The scientific issue is whether this is proof of the type of evolution that would produce new improved genetic information ... or a degrading of that information ... which would be indicative of a once-perfect Creation that is 'running down'.
As the benefit was achieved by the mutation-induced expression of an abnormal protein ... so that the Kuru prion cannot induce misfolding, thereby preventing the disease ...
It is therefore indicating the latter rather than the former is the case.

Abnormality isn't an argument against evolution. A thumb is an abnormal digit compared to our ape-like ancestors, but is perfectly normal for the modern human.

I have already defined it here:-
here

Please don't insult my intelligence. I know I don't have a college level science education, but I know enough to know that it's a scientific definition of CFSI.

Other than preventing the Kuru, which is, of course welcome, it results in the production of abnormal protein which is a reduction in CFSI.

That means you have no scientific argument to back up your assertion that it is damaging the protein.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

It has no purpose. Unless of coarse you can find one?

So if it has no CFSI, who put it there?

Good question.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Good question.

And...?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

NS is quite good at getting rid of negative attributes ... even up to the point of elimination (and the creation of an obligate).
It is useless at producing the functional variety (or CFSI), in the first place ... and this is supposedly provided by random mutagenesis ... even though mutagenesis has never been observed to increase CFSI ... but, instead, it has always been observed to degrade it.

This doesn't make any sense. You've been shown how natural selection can produce positive features, not just get rid of negative ones.

I have always said that NS is a fact ... and it can and does select varieties that are more suited to environmental niches from pre-existing CFSI.
Sexual Selection also exists ... (as anybody in a disco rapidly finds out) ... and it can be additive or subtractive to NS.
Sexual selection may select healthier more athletic specimens, for example, thereby being additive to NS ... or it can be subtractive to NS by selecting very 'flashy' attributes (like 'bigger and better' Peacock Feathers) ... which are a distinct NS disadvantage, because of the increased predation (and use of resources) that is likely to result.

I still don't understand how you can say natural selection is a fact yet claim evolution as a whole isn't. It's baffling.

J C wrote: »

Common structures are indicative of either or both a common ancestor or a common designer.
If Humans were descended from hairy Apes, they should have retained their full body hair, especially in colder Northern latitudes, as up to the 20th century, this would have given them a definite selection advantage over less hairy types during cold winters. The fact that this isn't the case is indicative of a Designer in action rather than descent from an Ape.

No, the fact this isn't the case indicates we evolved in a warm environment.

J C wrote: »

Are these muscles really analagous to those in Cats and Dogs and descended from a common ancestor (rather that evidence of a common designer, who turned them off in Humans)? ...
... and if you say that they are evidence of common descent, why would NS have selected against them ... when they could have continued to confer directional hearing on Humans?

But if a common designer turned them off in humans, why do some humans display a reduced version of these muscles?

J C wrote: »

It could also come in handy in a dark alley ... on a dark night ... and many other dangerous situations for Humans!!!:)
... but it was something that God chose to not endow us with ... and 'evolution' was unable to provide us with.

It could come in handy, yes, but not as much so as in the mentioned animals.

J C wrote: »

I'd like to read that ... you have obviously done a lot of work on it.

Don't get too excited, it's just an undergrad essay.

... stasis in hundreds of creatures and plants over supposed hundreds of millions of years ... does sit very awkwardly with claims that while nothing was happening with these species ... other species were transforming from a rat-like thing into a man.
It's indicative that the time frames should be measured in thousands, rather than millions of years ... and the rat-like thing and Humans were contemporaneous.

Why does that sit awkwardly? I don't understand this. When something evolves, in the beginning it will only happen in one individual. Not in all of the species at once. So why is it so hard to believe that some individuals won't change at all?

Speciation can occur very rapidly through isolation combined with intense selection ... but it's always observed to use pre-existing CFSI.

By this I assume you mean it uses pre existing genetic material. I don't see how this reinforces your argument at all.

They may have always been flightless ... or they may have lost the where-with-all for flight ... either way they don't provide any evidence for the type of 'evolution' required to change mocrobes into men ... over millions of years.

I realise that, but if that is the case, why do they look so similar to the ones who can fly? Why do they still have wings?

They're all wide open to any ideas you may proffer.:)

We shall see.

J C wrote: »

Think of it as helping you to learn about Creation Science.:);)

I'm learning a lot about it, none of it is convincing me of it's validity though I'm afraid.

1)The fossil record does contain, to use the video's own crap term 'Hald reptile half birds.' Many well preserved dinosaur fossils have feathers. Look up Archaeopteryx for an old example, you might learn something.
'Dinosaurs' are a mixture of different (dramatic-looking) creatures including birds (like Archaeopteryx), reptiles (like T. Rex) and warm-blooded mammals (like Triceratops).

I'll accept that dinosaurs are a mixture of different creatures. They were, however, all reptiles. Different groupings of reptiles, but still, all reptiles.

2) They're using a 150+ year old book as a main source. No reputable scientist would do this. Evolutionary research has come on in leaps and bounds since Darwin's time.
The main problems identified by Darwin with his theory still remain.

If this is so then why don't the people making the videos address modern papers on evolution?

3) The video seems to assume that almost every animal which has ever existed has been fossilised, which is ludicrous.
... not really ... but with millions of different specimens supposedly fossilised continuously over hudreds of millions of years ... we should see, at least some of the continuums over which species supposedly 'evolved' ... and not the wide gaps we see between all creatures.
It's like the fossilisation all happened over a very short period of time during a mass extinction caused by a worldwide flood.

... Just saying!!!

We don't see wide gaps between all creatures though. We see a contiuum to some extent with humans and dinosaurs --> birds, and to a larger extent with early tetrapods. Again, the geology does not back up the flood theory. At all. I recommend you read up on some basic geology if you think it does.

4) It keeps saying no transitional forms have been found, which is just untrue.
It's true allright.

No, it isn't.

5) Lol at the video referring to 'low-level textbooks' and 'pure fantasy'

6) Are they seriously using the cambrian explosion as evidence of creation? There's evidence of life before the Cambrian. Why did we not find humans along with trilobites in these fossil beds?
... because Humans don't ... and didn't inhabit the bottom of the sea ... where these creatures lived, died and were fossilised ... in a mass extinction event.

But i thought fossil beds were formed from a flood? How do you explain the undersea ones then?

Quote:-
"Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short period of time."
... and have a look here:-
http://nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

Volcanic eruptions are not flood, and volcanic rock is not the main source of fossils. This is irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

Good questions.

Can I just say fair play to you for actually, for a change, attempting to answer questions and not dance around them. I might not agree with you, but I can respect that at least.

J C

koth wrote: »

But bacteria can go through many generations compared to a single generation of animal. And it's not unreasonable to think that maybe life-forms further along the evolutionary scale have an ability to adapt better between generations.

The kuru example shows that the adaptation didn't take 1,000s of generations to happen. The article states that the finding "really supports the concept of very rapid adaptation of humans to the environment".

The Kuru example shows rapid adaption via damaged CFSI ... while the bacterial example, at best, from an evolutionist pont of view ... shows practically no evolution at all, over the equivalent of 1.32 million years for Humans, with a generation length of 30 years (44,000 generations x 30 years).